Prairies/Alberta have the highest rates of family abuse in Canada
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
By being melodramatic.
Seriously though, I' say two options:
1. Put an end to low-density developments, and
2. Allow for reconversion of suburbs to farmland.
Essentially the two go together because if you raise population density in parts of the subburbs, then you're emptying out the rest of the suburbs, which we could allow to go back to farmland. This would be a long-term process of course, done mainly through rezoning via attrition over a generation or more. But it can be done.
I forgot about that.
Indeed.
Also, progressive desuburbanization might avoid the problems Detroit now faces in the long term.
All this study tells me conclusively is that Albertan women aren't putting up with crap.
From my experience with spousal abuse, the community pulls together hard and makes sure a woman is on her feet and away from the man. The call goes out, and she's set up with furniture, dishes, supported with finding employment, and given every ounce of help that can be given. It's not tolerated, it's not excused. The reaction is decisive and not at all the way some would like to paint Alberta of 'the prairies'.
When problems really start to arise, it's not due to ignorance, it's not due to poverty. Any woman who's ever seen the cycle of abuse can tell you right away what it is that keeps women in an abusive situation, why there's a big diff between rural and urban... isolation and/or segregation. Abusers LOVE women who have no one to lean on, no one to witness what's happening, and nowhere else to go. Women who know nothing but the reserve and are too scared to leave. Women who have few friends way out there on the farm, who no one thinks it amiss if they don't see for a week while a bruise heals.
Just as pedophiles will seek positions of power, abusers will seek to isolate and control, and to do that, they seek settings conducive to it.
Maybe it's just my understanding of the "suburbs", I thought it was simply people living in smaller cities around a large city. With enough development, those smaller cities eventually become their own economic conduits - much like Mississauga. The second thing is that urban development naturally displaces people into more municipalities based on population growth alone.
Regardless of what we think, there will always be new cities as the population grows.
Well DUH!
High levels of First Nations people, and a growing economy that attracts young roughnecks to a disproportionate degree.....with their families and their problems.
It has NOTHING to do with "western culture".
I thought "rough rednecks" was western culture.
You haven't spent much time in the oilpatch hey?
Yeah, Like Kelowna and area? The entire patch of land from McCulloch to the lake and from north of Knox Mtn. south to where Bertram Cr. empties into the lake WAS all some of the best land in the Okanagan for agriculture.
And out here in the boonies, the population has tripled because people want to retire (or have summer homes) somewhere peaceful and quiet. So even out here in the boonies people want the aerable land to live on instead of allowing farmers to produce food on it.
It doesn't matter where you go, population expands and demands the best land to live on, which pushes agriculture out to the hills. Why? Because most people want to live near cities where they get work for money instead of working on their own stuff to support themselves.
So don't go blaming the burbs for everything. Blame the dumbass idea of cities in the first place.
And, BTW, there's an extremely low amount of domestic violence reports (low crime rate of just about any kind) around here.
Last edited:
Simply that the notion that 'roughneck' is a western thing is ridiculous when the patch is made up of all manner of Canadians. I didn't think it needed to be spelled out so plainly, sorry.
cities have existed since the advent of trade, and it is a good thing and a necessity in a trading economy.
The problem though is that we urbanites (and yes I said 'we' and not' them' since I'm an urbanite myself) cannot satisfy ourselves with moderation. We all need the biggest houses, the biggest cars, live as far away from work as possible in a "quiet neighbourhood", etc. The result: uncontrollable suburban sprawl.
So it's not cities themselves that are the problem, but the materialism. Never satisfied with what we have.
considering that we urbanites already have it comfortable as it is compared to country folk, maybe we could just try to use our city space and resources a little more efficiently.
